Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr vs. Poonam & Ors

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 05.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 20.03.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 20.03.2026
+ W.P.(C) 938/2026 & CM APPL. 4600/2026, CM APPL.
4601/2026
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Petitioners
versus
SEHDEV & ANR. .....Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 14309/2025 & CM APPL. 58577/2025
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Petitioners
versus
ANJANA KUMARI .....Respondent

+ W.P.(C) 553/2019 , CM APPL. 2530/2019, CM APPL.
13682/2023
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS .....Petitioners
versus
MANISHA .....Respondent

+ W.P.(C) 8979/2019, CM APPL. 37041/2019 & CM APPL.
38975/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Petitioners
versus
BIJENDER SINGH AND ORS. .....Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 10565/2019 & CM APPL. 43719/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS .....Petitioners
versus
URMILA .....Respondent

+ W.P.(C) 10837/2019 & CM APPL. 44872/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Petitioners
versus
RAJANI .....Respondent

+ W.P.(C) 11348/2019 & CM APPL. 46790/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS CHIEF
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 1 of 33



SECRETARY & ORS .....Petitioners
versus
GARIMA .....Respondent

+ W.P.(C) 10765/2019 & CM APPL. 44459/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Petitioners
versus
KM MARSI .....Respondent

+ W.P.(C) 11793/2019 & CM APPL. 48373/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS .....Petitioners
versus
DEEPTI SINGHAL .....Respondent

+ W.P.(C) 11997/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS CHIEF
SECRETARY & ORS .....Petitioners
versus
DEVI LAL SAINI .....Respondent

+ W.P.(C) 13224/2019 & CM APPL. 53798/2019
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Petitioners
versus
POONAM & ORS .....Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 506/2023
RIMPY .....Petitioner
versus
THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondent

+ W.P.(C) 10949/2023 & CM APPL. 42484/2023
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Petitioners
versus
SAVITA .....Respondent

+ W.P.(C) 11351/2023 & CM APPL. 44140/2023
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Petitioners
versus
SANDHYA .....Respondent

+ W.P.(C) 15993/2023, CM APPL. 64333/2023, CM APPL.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 2 of 33



3756/2026
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD
(DSSSB) AND ANR .....Petitioners
versus
POONAM .....Respondent

+ W.P.(C) 12996/2024 & CM APPL. 54123/2024, CM APPL.
65198/2025
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Petitioners
versus
SARITA & ANR. .....Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 15703/2024, CM APPL. 65935/2024 & CM APPL.
1614/2025
GOVT. OF NCT DELHI AND ORS. .....Petitioners
versus
SUMIT GAHLOT .....Respondent

+ W.P.(C) 3625/2025 & CM APPL. 16928/2025
GOVT OF NCT DELHI & ORS. .....Petitioners
versus
SAROJ KUMAR DAS .....Respondent

+ W.P.(C) 19763/2025 & CM APPL. 82576/2025, CM APPL.
3719/2026
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD
& ANR. .....Petitioners
versus
RASHMI DAGAR & ORS. .....Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 9718/2019 & CM APPL. 40100/2019
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Petitioners
versus
ADITYA KUMAR MISHRA .....Respondent

+ W.P.(C) 12220/2025 & CM APPL. 49801/2025
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Petitioners
versus
RAMAVTAR DHOBI .....Respondent

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 3 of 33



Present for the Petitioners:
Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Mr. Shashank Singh and Mr. Bhupendra Singh
Advs.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC along with Mr. Uday Singh Ahlawat, Ms.
Tania Ahlawat and Mr. Nitish Kumar Singh, Advs.
Mr. Sujeet Kumar Mishra and Mr. Harsh Kumar Pandey, Advs.

Present for the Respondents:
Mr. Anil Mittal and Mr. Shaurya Mittal, Advs.
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Ms. Divya Aggarwal, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Mr.
Shubham Bahl and Ms. Tanya Rose Advs.
Mr. Siddhant Gautam and Mr. Vivek Vishal Gautam, Advs.
Mr. Anil Singal and Ms. Nandita Sharma, Advs.
Mr. Saurabh Seth, Adv.
Mr. Himank Pal, Proxy Counsel.
Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. The present batch of 21 Petitions have been filed by the
Petitioners assailing 21 distinct judgments and orders rendered by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
[hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟], whereby the lis concerning the
rejection of the candidature of shortlisted candidates in the backdrop
of non-filing of e-dossiers and requisite documents, after qualifying
the written examination conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services
Selection Board (DSSB) for various post codes across different
departments, was adjudicated upon.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 4 of 33



2. Since all 21 petitions arise out of the same lis , albeit on distinct
factual matrix, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this
Court deems it appropriate to dispose of all the petitions via this
common judgment. A tabular representation of the petitions and the
respective judgments and orders from which they arise is presented
below:

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 5 of 33

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 6 of 33



3. Notably, the petitions enumerated at serial Nos.1 to 11 and 13
to 21, have been filed by the Government and its instrumentalities
whereas, the petition at serial No.12, has been filed by a private
individual.
4. In order to obviate any ambiguity and to ensure clarity and
consistency in the narration and analysis that follows, the parties
hereinafter, wherever necessary, shall be addressed as the
„Government‟ and the „private party/s‟, as the context may require.
5. In the writ petitions enlisted under serial Nos.1 to 11 and 13 to
21, the Government, has been directed to re-consider the cancellation
of the candidature of the private parties, despite the failure to upload
the e-dossier within the prescribed time period. Whereas the writ
petition enlisted under serial No.12 has been filed by the private party
assailing the judgment dated 28.10.2022, wherein the OA filed by her,
was dismissed, thereby upholding the cancellation of her candidature
on account of failure to upload her e-dossier within the prescribed
time period.
6. By and large, the Tribunal by way of IO-1, IO-2, IO-3, IO-6 to
IO-9, IO-11, IO-13 and IO-14 to IO-19, found that the failure on
account of the private parties to upload e-dossiers was attributable to
deficiencies in communication by the Government, such as absence of
SMS/e-mail intimation or reliance on general website notices. The
tribunal held that minor procedural lapses should not defeat
substantive merit. Additionally, in IO-2 the Tribunal emphasized that
the candidates who score higher marks than the last selected candidate
could not be rejected solely for procedural default. Whereas in IO-14,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 7 of 33



the Tribunal emphasized that the private party therein was meritorious
and in her third trimester of pregnancy, hence, the government should
have taken a lenient view. It was against the aforesaid factual
backdrop that, it was held that she should not have been deprived of
her right to get appointment, merely for procedural lapses attributable
to the Government. Accordingly, in the aforementioned cases, the
Tribunal directed acceptance of the e-dossier beyond the prescribed
time period.
7. Whereas in IO-4 and IO-5, the Tribunal, by way of an interim
relief, at a prima facie stage, permitted provisional submission and
consideration of documents within a limited time frame so as to
prevent irreversible prejudice to the private parties, without finally
adjudicating the merits.
8. By way of IO-20, the Tribunal, while taking note of the fact that
the private party was visually handicapped and forced to rely on the
reading of the DSSSB notice for the submission of e-dossier, held that
equitable accommodation was warranted. In view of the aforestated,
the e-dossier was permitted to be submitted in hard copy within a
short time frame.
9. In IO-21, the Tribunal while synthesizing the judgment of this
Court in W.P.(C) 2892/2019 captioned Pushpendra Singh Parnami v
DSSSB and W.P. (C) 4085/2019 captioned Mrs. Jyoti v GNCTD &
Anr. as well as its prior decisions in O.A. No.1923/2019 captioned
Mukesh Kumar v. DSSSB & Anr. and O.A. No.4163/2017 captioned
Sumit Gahlot v. GNCTD & Ors. , allowed the OA filed by the private
party, while noting that there is no record to show that the e-mail sent
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 8 of 33



to the private party was actually received thereof.
10. On the contrary, in IO-12, the Tribunal applied the strict online
process doctrine enumerated in the judgment of this Court in
Pushpendra Singh Parnami (Supra). Relying on the aforesaid
judgment, it was held that the candidates are obliged to monitor the
DSSSB website, thereby complying with the requirement of
submission of e-dossier within the prescribed time limit. Accordingly,
the relaxation as sought for by way of the OA was refused on account
of no lapse on the part of the DSSSB and to avoid discrimination
against other candidates.
BRIEF BACKGROUND:
11. The Petitioners, have now approached this Court, seeking to
challenge the correctness of the impugned judgments/orders.
12. Notwithstanding the commonality of the principal question of
law involved, this Court is of the considered view that factual
substratum of each petition is distinct and warrants independent
delineation. Such segregation is necessitated in order to effectively
adjudicate upon the question whether the delay in submission of the e-
dossier, in the peculiar facts of each petition, is liable to be condoned
so as to preserve the candidature of the concerned private party.
13. While the overarching controversy in all the petitions pertains
to the permissibility of condonation of delay in uploading the e-
dossier subsequent to qualifying the written examination, the cause of
action espoused by each private party is distinct. Additionally, the
dates of issuance of advertisements, the prescribed timelines for
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 9 of 33



submission of e-dossiers, the dates of finalisation of the selection
process, the preparation of the list of shortlisted candidates, as well as
the period of delay in each case, are materially divergent. Similarly,
the explanations tendered for such delay by each private party is case
specific and necessitates individual scrutiny.
14. In view of the aforestated and for the sake of precision and
convenience, a tabulated categorisation of the relevant details is
provided hereinbelow qua the separate categories and timelines of
each case:
Table No.1: List of relevant dates including the date of
recruitment notice, notice inviting submission of e-dossiers,
prescribed window for uploading the e-dossier and the date of
finalisation of the selection process.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 10 of 33

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 11 of 33

15. This Court has heard learned counsel appearing for the parties
at length and with their able assistance has perused the paper book.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES:
16. Learned counsel for the parties have filed their respective
written submission and have relied upon judgments thereof. The
contentions of the parties are examined hereinafter.
17. In substance, learned Counsel for the Government, while
supporting the rejection of the private parties, has made the following
submissions:
17.1 It has been argued that the Tribunal by way of the IOs, except
IO-12, erred in directing acceptance of the documents, disregarding
the non-compliance and the time-bound, electronic nature of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 12 of 33



recruitment process. In support of this contention, it is the case of the
Government, that all shortlisted candidates, including the private
parties before this Court, were afforded sufficient opportunity to
upload their e-dossiers as per the respective Result Notices uploaded
on the website.
17.2 Further, it has been contended that, even otherwise, it was the
duty of the private parties to keep a track of the website in order to
attain the information pertaining to the upload of e-dossier as well as
the intimation of the results uploaded thereof.
17.3 Moreover, it is also contended that the private parties had
received the SMS and/or e-mail regarding the upload of e-dossier,
notwithstanding such intimation, they failed to upload their documents
through e-dossier.
17.4 In addition to the aforestated, while challenging the IO-15, it
has been argued that the concerned private party, on one hand, asserts
that no SMS or email was received by her. However, on the other
hand, it has been admitted by her that the email containing
information regarding the uploading of e-dossier was received after
the cut-off date.
18. Per contra , learned counsels for the private parties, while
challenging the rejection by the Government, have opposed the
petitions filed before this Court, by submitting that the order passed
by the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court and
thus the present petitions deserve to be dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 13 of 33



19. Additionally, the principal contention of the private parties
pertains to the allegation that, despite being shortlisted, no intimation
to that effect was conveyed to them by the Government, either by
SMS or email, as required by the applicable instructions.
ANALYSIS AND REASONING:
20. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the paperbook as well as the
judgments relied upon.
21. As already enumerated in the preceding paragraph of this
judgment, the only issue which arises for the consideration of this
Court is whether rejection of candidature on account of non-
submission of the e-dossier within the prescribed time period can be
sustained, especially, in circumstances where the communication
regarding shortlisting and requirement of uploading the e-dossier was
not demonstrably received by the concerned candidate.
22. Before proceeding to deal with the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to reproduce
the relevant extracts of the Advertisement Notice, the subsequent
Admit Card and Result Notices issued by the Government. These
documents constitute the foundational record, thereby delineating the
procedural framework governing the submission of applications for
the various posts against which the private parties participated in the
written examination, as well as the consequential steps arising
therefrom. For the sake of analytical clarity and convenience, we
propose to treat W.P.(C) No. 14309/2025 and the documents placed
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 14 of 33



on record therein as the lead matter for the present adjudication. The
relevant extracts of the Advertisement, the Admit Card, and the Result
Notice are reproduced hereunder for ready reference-
Advertisement-
Note 4. The successful candidates will be required to submit legible
self attested copies of the documents, Admit Card alongwith the hard
copy of printout of online application for at the time of verification of
documents (any information contained in the attached certificates
shall not be considered unless it is claimed in the application form)
Admit Card-
Instruction for candidates
8. Uploading of mobile number & e-mail in OARS to ensured
as all intimation will be given through website, e-mail and SMS only
and no intimation through individual letters will be given.
Result Notice-
The link for uploading e-dossier shall be kept open for a period of 10
days w.e.f. 19/09/2018 to 28/09/2018. The candidates uploading e-
dossier should ensure that they fulfills all the eligibility criteria as on
the cutoff date, i.e. 31/01/2018. The shortlisted are also being
separately informed through SMS & E-mail on their registered mobile
number & r-mail id. If, any candidate fails to upload the e-dossier
during the above said period, her candidature will be rejected and no
further opportunity for uploading e-dossier will be given on
whatsoever ground.
23. A perusal of the Advertisement Notice unequivocally
demonstrates that the private parties were required to submit hard
copies of the relevant documents, thereby evincing that, at its
inception, the recruitment process was contemplated to be conducted
in the conventional offline mode and not through an online
mechanism. The employment of the expression “successful
candidates” at the very threshold of the advertisement further lends
credence to the inference that those candidates who were to submit the
requisite documents would, prior thereto, be apprised of their
successful qualification in the written examination.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 15 of 33



24. Whereas, the Admit Card, under the head “Instructions for
Candidates,” categorically mandated that each candidate must ensure
the uploading of her or his mobile number and e-mail address.
Moreover, it was also stipulated therein that all future updates
pertaining to the examination would be communicated through three
distinct modes, namely: (i) mobile number, (ii) e-mail address, and
(iii) the official website. A purposive and conjoint reading of the said
stipulation makes it clear that intimation of subsequent developments
was not intended to be confined merely to a website notification but
was also required to be affirmatively communicated through
electronic mail and telephonic messaging.
25. Further, a perusal of the Result Notice, reveals that the
shortlisted candidates were stated to have been duly informed
regarding the uploading of their e-dossier through their registered
mobile numbers and e-mail addresses.
26. A cumulative and harmonious construction of the
Advertisement Notice, the Admit Card, and the Result Notice, renders
it explicit that the recruitment process, as originally conceived, was to
be undertaken offline. Whereas the requirement of uploading
documents in the form of an e-dossier emerged, subsequently, through
the result notice. Significantly, during the course of arguments, and
even in the pleadings placed before this Court, the Government has
failed to discharge the burden cast upon it to demonstrate that any
prior or specific intimation was furnished to the candidates apprising
them of the alteration in the mode of submission, i.e., from offline to
online.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 16 of 33



27. It is a settled principle of administrative law that a
communication, particularly one entailing civil consequences, attains
legal efficacy only when it is effectively communicated to the
concerned person. Meaning thereby, mere issuance of a notice or its
unilateral uploading on a website, without proof of its receipt or due
intimation, cannot ipso facto be construed as valid communication.
28. In the peculiar and distinct facts of the present batch, the
rejection of candidature, undoubtedly, results in adverse civil
consequences. Accordingly, in the backdrop of such civil
consequences, the Government must show that the candidate was duly
informed of the requirement to upload the e-dossier within the
prescribed time period.
29. The Government before this Court, has argued its case
substantially on the plea that the Result Notices were uploaded on the
official website and the candidates were under an obligation to keep
visiting the same. However, the doctrine of effective communication
does not stand diluted merely because the process is electronic in
nature.
30. In this regard, a reference may be made to the judgment of this
Court in W.P. (C) 2786/2018 captioned GNCTD & Ors. v. Jagdeep ,
wherein this Court, while upholding the view taken by the Tribunal,
held that a general web notice was not by itself sufficient, particularly,
when the recruitment architecture had not apprised the candidates that
they would only be informed via website and no individual
communication would follow. In such circumstances, the Court
accepted the candidate‟s assertion that he had no knowledge of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 17 of 33



rejection notice and held that he could not be expected to keep
checking the website “on his own from time to time”.
31. At this stage, it becomes pertinent to highlight that the
Government in the present batch of cases, had adopted a dual track
design with respect to the intimation of the information pertaining to
the respective examinations. The Advertisement, Admit Card and
Result Notice collectively advised the candidates to keep visiting the
website for updates, while expressly stating that the shortlisted
candidates would be separately intimated by SMS and e-mail on their
registered mobile numbers and email IDs.
32. Notably, the Advertisement Notice clearly stipulated that the
candidates who are selected or shortlisted would be required to submit
requisite documents. Such stipulation necessarily pre-supposes that
such shortlisted status will be effectively communicated to the
concerned candidates. To put it differently, the obligation to submit
documents cannot arise in vacuo , and is contingent upon a prior
intimation of status. This position also finds affirmation in the
judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) 17117/2024 titled DSSB and Anr.
v Mohan Lal Chhedwal , wherein it was observed that where further
compliance is predicated upon selection or shortlisting, the recruiting
authority bears the corresponding duty to ensure proper
communication of such status to the candidate concerned.
33. Therefore, under the Government‟s own scheme, the composite
communication was not merely a facility but an integral part of the
recruitment structure. Once the Government chooses to represent in its
official documents that the candidates will be individually intimated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 18 of 33



by SMS and email, the communication will only be treated as
complete when the website notice is uploaded and the candidates are
intimated through SMS and email. In such circumstances, the doctrine
of legitimate expectation would be ensued in favour of the candidate,
who were entitled to presume that she or he will receive such specific
intimation through all prescribed channels, before being non-suited for
failure to upload e-dossier.
34. In view of the explicit stipulation in the Admit Card that
communication would be effected through three distinct modes, it was
incumbent upon the Government to ensure strict and scrupulous
compliance therewith. Once the Government undertakes to use SMS
and email as a mode of prior intimation, it cannot approbate and
reprobate from its own procedural architecture devised by the
Government itself. Moreover, the Government cannot selectively
enforce only those components which operate against the candidate,
while disregarding those which imposes duties upon itself.
35. Hence, if a Recruiting Authority intends to rely exclusively on
general notifications, it must do so clearly and unequivocally. The
relevant documents should explicitly state that no separate or
individual communication will be issued, and candidates are required
to remain vigilant, thereby complying strictly within the stipulated
timelines. Such distinction drawn by the recruitment authority at the
initiation of the process, would bring clarity while minimizing
ambiguity and preventing future disputes.
36. However, in cases where the Selection Board or recruiting
agency chooses to adopt the mode of individual communication, either
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 19 of 33



by post, email, SMS, or any other electronic means, it assumes a
corresponding legal responsibility. Once the recruiting authority
adopts such a mode by way of its own communications, the burden of
proving effective dispatch and communication rests squarely upon the
said authority. In such a scenario, it would not be sufficient to merely
state that communication was sent; the authority must be in a position
to demonstrate, through records or credible evidence, that reasonable
steps were taken to ensure that the candidate was duly informed in the
prescribed manner.
37. In absence of such proof, the Court would be justified in
drawing an adverse inference against the Selection Board, since an
administrative convenience cannot override principles of natural
justice, thereby penalizing the candidate for non-compliance with a
requirement of which she or he was never effectively informed.
38. It is equally pertinent to highlight that adherence to prescribed
cut-off dates and procedural timelines is undeniably essential in public
matters pertaining to public recruitment. The conditions embodied in
the recruitment notices issued by the relevant authority are binding in
character and are required to be applied uniformly to uphold the
mandate of equality as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 [hereinafter referred to as „Constitution‟].
However, strict compliance with timelines cannot be viewed in
isolation from the equally important obligation of effective
communication.
39. Therefore, in circumstances alike, the Courts, more often than
not are called upon to strike a delicate and principled balance between
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 20 of 33



two competing considerations, namely, the necessity of adhering to
cut-off dates along with procedural requirements; and the
consequences flowing from a delay or non-compliance with such
requirements.
40. We deem it necessary to highlight that rejection of candidature
for failure to complete documentation carries grave and often
irreversible consequences, especially when the candidate has duly
qualified the written examination. For many aspirants, a government
job represents years of preparation, financial investment, and personal
sacrifice. Thus, disqualification at the final stage, particularly on
technical grounds, not only significantly impact the professional
prospects but also the psychological and economic stability of the
candidate. Therefore, such rejection must be exercised with caution
and only after the authority reaches a firm and reasoned conclusion
that, the requirement was clearly communicated; the mode of
communication adopted was reliable and verifiable; a fair and
reasonable opportunity was afforded to the candidate to comply with
prescribed norms and no administrative lapse acted as a contributory
to the alleged non-compliance.
41. The principle of fairness demands that procedural rigidity must
not defeat substantive justice. While this Court, is conscious that it
cannot ordinarily interfere with recruitment processes or relax cut-off
dates indiscriminately, nevertheless, we are duty-bound to intervene
where denial of opportunity results from administrative inadequacy
rather than candidate negligence. Ultimately, public recruitment which
provides adherence to a particular timeline, the decision taken by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 21 of 33



recruitment body must reflect both efficiency and equity. In essence,
while procedural rigor safeguards administrative order, fairness in
communication safeguards justice. A recruitment process that
harmonizes both principles, not only withstands judicial scrutiny but
also uphold the constitutional mandate of equality and fairness in
public employment.
42. Having delineated the governing legal principles, this Court
shall now advert to the facts of each petition individually.
43. In W.P. (C) 938/2026, the Tribunal by way of the IO-1 allowed
the OA filed by the private party, inter alia holding that he became
aware of the cancellation of his candidature only upon receipt of the
rejection notice. However, the Government before this Court has
placed on record the status extracted from the OARS portal, which
indicates that an SMS as well as an email were sent to the private
party on 26.09.2019, intimating him to upload his e-dossier within the
stipulated period, namely from 27.09.2019 to 11.10.2019. The mobile
number and email ID recorded therein have not been disputed by the
private party.
44. In the absence of any challenge to the correctness of the contact
details or the authenticity of the portal record, a presumption of due
intimation arises. The material on record thus establishes compliance
with the prescribed modes of communication. Accordingly, the
present petition is allowed.
45. In W.P. (C) 14309/2025, the Tribunal by way of IO-2 allowed
the OA filed by the private party, primarily on the ground that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 22 of 33



email ID of the applicant was erroneous and, therefore, effective
communication regarding the requirement to upload the e-dossier was
not established. However, the Government before this Court has
placed on record the status extract from the OARS portal, which
reflects that SMS as well as email was sent to the private party on
27.09.2018 and 17.09.2018 respectively, thereby requiring her to
upload the e-dossier within the stipulated window from 19.09.2018 to
28.09.2018. The said record indicates that intimation was generated
prior to and during the operative period for submission.
46. Significantly, the private party has not disputed the correctness
of the mobile number or email address reflected in the OARS portal,
nor has any material been placed to substantiate the plea of an
erroneous email ID. In the absence of such dispute, the
contemporaneous electronic record cannot be brushed aside.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
47. In W.P.(C) 553/2019, the Tribunal by way of IO-3 allowed the
OA filed by the private party. The Government before this Court has
stated that a SMS was sent to the private party on 18.08.2017
intimating her that the last date for uploading the e-dossier had been
extended till 25.08.2017. The record indicates that the initial window
for submission was from 28.07.2017 to 10.08.2017, which was
thereafter extended up to 16.08.2017 and finally up to 25.08.2017.
48. However, the SMS relied upon by the Government was
dispatched only on 18.08.2017, i.e., after expiry of the earlier revised
cut-off and at a stage when the extended period was already
substantially underway. Consequently, the private party was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 23 of 33



effectively left with a truncated window of approximately nine days to
comply, as against the twenty-nine days available to other shortlisted
candidates from the inception of the process. Such belated intimation
defeats the object of prescribing a reasonable time window to enable
candidates to collect and upload requisite documents. In these
circumstances, the plea of due communication cannot be accepted as
compliance in parity with other candidates. Accordingly, the present
petition is dismissed.
49. In W.P.(C) 8979/2019, the Tribunal by way of the IO-4 issued
an interim direction for consideration of the candidature of the private
party. The Tribunal took note of the fact that the Result Notice dated
13.01.2019 erroneously referred to the post of PGT (English), whereas
the result in question pertained to TGT (English). This error was
admittedly rectified only on 08.02.2019, without any corresponding
modification of the stipulated window for uploading the e-dossier,
namely 04.02.2019 to 13.02.2019.
50. The Government before this Court has placed reliance upon an
undertaking stating that no failure of delivery of email was recorded
during the prescribed period in respect of the private party‟s email ID.
However, the undertaking neither specifies the precise date on which
the communication was effected nor clarifies whether such intimation
preceded or followed the rectification of the erroneous Result Notice.
51. In view of the foregoing, this Court is not inclined to allow the
present petition for two reasons. Firstly , the rectification of the
foundational error in the Result Notice occurred five days after
commencement of the e-dossier upload window, thereby materially
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 24 of 33



truncating the effective opportunity available to the private party.
Secondly , the undertaking is general in nature and does not
conclusively establish timely and meaningful communication prior to,
or contemporaneous with, the corrected notice. The absence of clarity
as to the timing of intimation, coupled with the admitted error in the
Result Notice, creates an element of uncertainty not attributable to the
candidate. In these circumstances, the present petition is dismissed.
52. In W.P.(C) 10565/2019, the Tribunal by way of the IO-5, issued
an interim direction for consideration of the candidature of the private
party. The Tribunal noted that the advertisement, at its inception,
contemplated submission of hard copies of documents and did not
expressly stipulate the requirement of uploading the same through an
e-dossier mechanism.
53. The Government in its counter affidavit filed before the
Tribunal stated that that shortlisted candidates were intimated through
SMS at regular intervals. However, the report subsequently placed
before this Court merely states that no failure of delivery of email was
recorded during the prescribed period in respect of the private party‟s
email ID. The undertaking does not disclose the precise date or time at
which the alleged communication was effected, nor does it establish
that such intimation was made in a manner affording the private party
a fair and effective opportunity within the prescribed window.
54. The absence of specific particulars regarding the timing of
communication, coupled with the initial ambiguity in the
advertisement regarding the mode of submission, lends credence to
the Tribunal‟s prima facie view that the private party ought not to be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 25 of 33



non-suited at that stage. The material placed before this Court does not
dislodge the basis of the interim protection granted. Accordingly, the
present petition is dismissed.
55. In W.P.(C) 10837/2019, the Tribunal by way of IO-6
summarily dealt with the argument made by the private party, thereby
allowing the OA. However, the Government before this Court has
placed reliance upon the OARS portal status indicating intimation for
uploading the e-dossier, along with a report stating that no failure of
delivery of email was recorded during the prescribed period in respect
of the private party‟s email ID. However, the said report does not
disclose the specific date or time at which the communication was
effected. It merely indicates that the communication fell within the
overall time window prescribed for uploading the e-dossier.
56. In the absence of clear material demonstrating that the
intimation was made at the inception of the window, thereby affording
the private party a fair and effective opportunity equivalent to other
shortlisted candidates, the possibility of a truncated or delayed
communication cannot be ruled out. Such ambiguity, particularly in a
time-bound recruitment process, cannot operate to the detriment of the
candidate. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
57. In W.P.(C) 11348/2019, the Tribunal by way of IO-7, while
noting that the private party did not receive any SMS intimation
regarding the uploading of the e-dossier, allowed the OA. The
Government before this Court has not placed any material on record to
demonstrate that either SMS or email was sent to the private party. In
the absence of such proof, it cannot be presumed that the private party
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 26 of 33



was effectively informed within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the
present petition is dismissed.
58. In W.P.(C) 10765/2019, the Tribunal by way of IO-8
summarily allowed the OA filed by the private party. The Government
before this Court has relied upon the OARS portal status indicating
intimation for uploading the e-dossier, along with a report stating that
no failure of delivery of email was recorded in respect of the private
party‟s email ID during the prescribed period. However, the report
does not specify the exact date or time when the communication was
effected and only indicates the overall time window for submission.
59. In the absence of material establishing that the private party was
effectively informed at the inception of the prescribed period, a
disparity vis-à-vis other shortlisted candidates cannot be ruled out.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
60. In W.P.(C) 11793/2019, the Tribunal by way of IO-9, allowed
the OA filed by the private party, while noting that the Government
had failed to intimate her regarding the uploading of the e-dossier in
accordance with the prescribed recruitment procedure. The
Government before this Court has submitted that the private party was
intimated by way of SMS. However, a perusal of the Order dated
16.12.2021 passed by this Court, reveals that the Government failed to
file any affidavit as directed by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2021
to substantiate such intimation. In the absence of evidence
demonstrating effective communication, the present petition is
dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 27 of 33



61. In W.P.(C) 11997/2019, the Tribunal by way of IO-10,
summarily allowed the OA filed by the private party. The Government
before this Court has failed to produce any material to demonstrate
that intimation, either via SMS or email, was sent to the private party.
In the absence of such proof, it cannot be held that the private party
was effectively informed within the prescribed timeline. Accordingly,
the present petition is dismissed.
62. Similarly, in W.P.(C) 13224/2019, the Government before this
Court has failed to produce any material to demonstrate that
intimation, either via SMS or email, was sent to the private party.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
63. In W.P.(C) 506/2023, the Tribunal by way of IO-12, dismissed
the OA filed by the private party on account of delay in filing the
requisite documents. The Government before this Court has produced
an email indicating that an SMS was sent to the private party on
28.04.2017, directing her to upload the e-dossier by 12.05.2017,
thereby implying that intimation was being made via SMS to the
selected candidates. However, the said email does not specify the
phone number to which the SMS was sent, and no further supporting
material has been filed to substantiate effective communication. In
view of the foregoing, the purported intimation cannot be relied upon.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
64. In W.P.(C) 10949/2023, the Tribunal by way of IO-13, allowed
the OA filed by the private party, observing that she did not receive
any intimation, and that procedural technicalities should not defeat the
substantive rights of a candidate. The Government before this Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 28 of 33



has contended that bulk SMS and emails were sent to candidates on
13.07.2020 and 06.07.2020, respectively. However, no documentary
proof has been filed to substantiate this claim. In the absence of
credible evidence of intimation, the present petition is dismissed.
65. In W.P.(C) 11351/2023, the Tribunal by way of IO-14, allowed
the OA filed by the private party, taking into account the failure of the
Government to send any intimation regarding the upload of the e-
dossier and the fact that she was pregnant. The Government before
this Court contended that an SMS was sent to the private party
intimating her of the prescribed time period for uploading the e-
dossier. However, no documentary evidence has been filed to
substantiate this assertion. In the absence of credible proof of
intimation, the present petition is dismissed.
66. In W.P.(C) 15993/2023, the Tribunal by way of IO-15, allowed
the OA filed by the private party, noting the failure of the Government
to intimate her regarding the upload of the e-dossier. A perusal of the
record filed before the Tribunal shows that the private party received
an email dated 02.04.2019, which was well after the prescribed period
of 23.01.2019 to 01.02.2019. Further, the Orders of this Court dated
22.01.2024 and 08.10.2025 indicate that the Government was unable
to produce any documentary evidence showing that the private party
was aware of the requirement to upload the e-dossier within the
prescribed time. In view of the Government‟s inability to substantiate
timely intimation, the present petition is dismissed.
67. In W.P.(C) 12996/2024, the Tribunal by way of IO-16, allowed
the OA filed by the private party, holding it to be identical to O.A.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 29 of 33



No.1923/2019 captioned Poonam v. DSSSB & Anr. , thereby adopting
the reasoning therein. With regard to the present case, it may be noted
that the prescribed period to upload e-dossier was from 27.04.2017 to
12.05.2017, whereas the Government before this Court has produced
the status from the OARS portal, indicating that an SMS was sent to
the private party on 28.04.2017, directing her to upload the e-dossier
before 12.05.2017. However, taking the document on its face value,
and in light of the fact that the private party was duly intimated on the
very next date following the commencement of the prescribed period,
coupled with no dispute raised by the private party regarding the
phone number mentioned in the document, the present petition is
allowed.
68. In W.P.(C) 15703/2024, the Tribunal by way of IO-17, allowed
the OA filed by the private party while classifying the said OA to be
identical to Poonam (Supra), thereby adopting its reasoning. The
Government before this Court has produced the status from the OARS
portal, thereby indicating that an SMS dated 18.08.2017 was sent to
the private party, to upload her e-dossier before 25.08.2017.
69. In this regard, it is noted that the first cut-off period stipulated
by the Government was 21.07.2017 to 31.07.2017, which was further
extended upto 25.08.2017, however, the SMS was merely sent to the
private party after the passage of the prior cut-off date, thereby
denying the equitable time to the private party in parity with the other
selected candidates. In this regard, it becomes pertinent to note that a
time of only 8 days was given to the private party for filing of the
relevant documents by way of the e-dossier, as against the 36 days
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 30 of 33



given to the other selected candidates, thereby enabling them to
collect their documents and accordingly upload them on the website.
70. However, such delayed intimation not only fails to highlight the
bona fide of the Government but also defeats the very purpose of
providing a window of certain days for the convenience of the
candidate. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
71. In W.P.(C) 3625/2025, the tribunal by way of IO-18, allowed
the OA filed by the private party while classifying the said OA to be
identical to Poonam (Supra), thereby adopting its reasoning. The
Government before this Court has argued that an SMS was sent to the
private party, intimating her about the prescribed time period for
uploading the e-dossier; however, no document substantiating the said
argument has been produced before this Court. Accordingly, the
present petition is dismissed.
72. In W.P.(C) 19763/2025, the Tribunal by way of IO-19, allowed
the OA filed by the private parties, while observing that the
Government failed to abide by the terms of its own advertisement,
thereby failing to intimate them regarding the uploading of the e-
dossier through any electronic mode. The Government before this
Court, has failed to bring on record any document to highlight that the
requisite intimation was indeed sent to the private party. Accordingly,
the present petition is dismissed.
73. In W.P.(C) 9718/2019, the Tribunal by way of IO-20, while
taking note that the candidate was visually handicapped and had
received incorrect information regarding submission of the e-dossier,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 31 of 33



allowed the OA filed thereof. The Government before this Court has
filed a report stating that no failure of email delivery was recorded for
the private party‟s email during the prescribed period. However, the
report does not specify the date on which the communication was
effected but merely identifies the prescribed time window. In the
absence of material establishing that the private party was effectively
informed at the inception of the prescribed period, a disparity vis-à-vis
other shortlisted candidates cannot be ruled out. In view of the
foregoing, the present petition is dismissed.
74. In W.P.(C) 12220/2025, the Tribunal by way of IO-21, relying
on the judgment of Poonam (Supra) allowed the OA filed by the
private party. The Government has failed to bring on record any
document to highlight that the requisite intimation was indeed sent to
the private party. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
CONCLUSION:
75. In view of the aforegoing discussions, the W.P. (C) 938/2026,
W.P. (C) 14309/2025, W.P.(C) 506/2023 and W.P.(C) 12996/2024 are
allowed.
76. Whereas W.P.(C) 553/2019, W.P.(C) 8979/2019, W.P.(C)
10565/2019, W.P.(C) 10837/2019, W.P.(C) 11348/2019, W.P.(C)
10765/2019, W.P.(C) 11793/2019, W.P.(C) 11997/2019, W.P.(C)
13224/2019, W.P.(C) 10949/2023, W.P.(C) 11351/2023, W.P.(C)
15993/2023, W.P.(C) 15703/2024, W.P.(C) 3625/2025, W.P.(C)
19763/2025, W.P.(C) 9718/2019 and W.P.(C) 12220/2025 are
dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 32 of 33



77. All the pending applications shall stand closed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
MARCH 20, 2026
s.godara/hr

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.03.2026
12:27:38
W.P.(C) 938/2026 & connected matters Page 33 of 33